There are billions of self-aware computers on this planet already, most of which are underutilized.

huh? Are you joking?

Quite a lot of computer systems have parity bits so they "know" when they are right or wrong tho maybe that should be write or read properly its been a while since I did proper low level bit twiddling.

_________________Someone has to tilt at windmills.So that we know what to do when the real giants come!!!!

Anyone have any opinions on the point of the Turing test? I.e., is anyone of the opinion that the appearance of sentience is actual sentience?

Its a useful concept to narrow down both the number of both false positives and negatives the feedback helps refine the test. When the test is good enough the appearance of sentience will be actual sentience and the test will have helped us get there.

_________________Someone has to tilt at windmills.So that we know what to do when the real giants come!!!!

Haven't you heard fellow space enthusiast Elon Musk has specified a train without rails running on a cushion of pressurised air IIRC and he is batting 4 for 4 so far . Mind you even tho I like quite a lot of weird blue sky ideas I don't think V.E.E.G. is even close to one of reality's bleeding edges he is more likely to be sliced and diced by Occam's razor in a bad way especially if he does have patent lawyers taking money from him.

_________________Someone has to tilt at windmills.So that we know what to do when the real giants come!!!!

Its a useful concept to narrow down both the number of both false positives and negatives the feedback helps refine the test. When the test is good enough the appearance of sentience will be actual sentience and the test will have helped us get there.

Or we will simply have created a simulation of sentience that is very good at passing a Turing test.

Its a useful concept to narrow down both the number of both false positives and negatives the feedback helps refine the test. When the test is good enough the appearance of sentience will be actual sentience and the test will have helped us get there.

Or we will simply have created a simulation of sentience that is very good at passing a Turing test.

Exactly my point. The simulation of sentience isn't sentience.

_________________“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.” -Anonymous

The brain is very sensitive to the energy that emits a magnet and can be seen with the eyes closed. This explains how the ether is attached to energy, therefore, what is perceived with the eyes closed is Eterenergia or ether with energy. The Ether bring the energy of the magnet until his eyes closed.

Its a useful concept to narrow down both the number of both false positives and negatives the feedback helps refine the test. When the test is good enough the appearance of sentience will be actual sentience and the test will have helped us get there.

Or we will simply have created a simulation of sentience that is very good at passing a Turing test.

Exactly my point. The simulation of sentience isn't sentience.

That is not knowable until we have got very good at the simulations and can still find a significant difference.

_________________Someone has to tilt at windmills.So that we know what to do when the real giants come!!!!

That is not knowable until we have got very good at the simulations and can still find a significant difference.

The algorithm for a simulation (mimicry without true self-awareness/ consciousness) is likely very different than the process which creates actual sentience.

Yes, we might very well create a simulation that can fool people, and even other computers, but the difference will be "under the hood" if it is simply an elaborate set of programmed conditional responses designed to give the right answers/behavior, or is it the level of learning and "thinking" that we associate with intelligence.

That is not knowable until we have got very good at the simulations and can still find a significant difference.

The algorithm for a simulation (mimicry without true self-awareness/ consciousness) is likely very different than the process which creates actual sentience.

Yes, we might very well create a simulation that can fool people, and even other computers, but the difference will be "under the hood" if it is simply an elaborate set of programmed conditional responses designed to give the right answers/behavior, or is it the level of learning and "thinking" that we associate with intelligence.

Yeah. What he said.

_________________“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.” -Anonymous